This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

How much has been spent on Ferguson, alone? These things will pay for themselves.

I'm not opposed to the cameras, but they won't prevent riots like we've seen in Ferguson.

No matter what the video evidence proves, if the verdict isn't the race hustlers want, there will still be riots.

Originally Posted by americanwoman

So there is absolutely no evidence this woman, whom you called a slut, did this but you are ready to take someone's word as evidence. Guess you don't think witch hunts have to end when it's going after the certain people.

Let's say that the camera worked just fine and caught everything just exactly the way that Wilson said it happened. What would that solve? Yeah, maybe there wouldn't have been riots but would it have eased the tensions between cops and the community?

Wouldn't the control of a potential major riot be a huge success?

I agree that the deeper root of the problem is tension between the cops and the community. Thinking of proactive ways to help even the playing field, ie requiring cops to wear cameras, would be a step in the right direction.

I agree that the deeper root of the problem is tension between the cops and the community. Thinking of proactive ways to help even the playing field, ie requiring cops to wear cameras, would be a step in the right direction.

I'm not going to speculate about cameras mitigating the risk of riots. These things happen on a case by case basis and any of a number of factors can make a difference. Keep in mind that the latest riots happened well after the majority of the evidence was known and didn't stop after all the evidence was released so whether a camera would have helped things or not....I'm not convinced. As others have noted, sometimes the facts just don't seem to matter.

The White House announced Monday that President Barack Obama will sign an executive order meant to improve training for local law enforcement agencies that receive equipment through federal grant programs. Among the proposed initiatives is a 3-year, $263 million investment package, of which $75 million would go toward covering half the cost of 50,000 officer-mounted cameras -- a technology that has been widely cited as a necessary police reform following the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager shot and killed by Ferguson, Missouri police officer Darren Wilson in August.

Monday's announcement was greeted by some as a victory for transparency in law enforcement. Yet with almost 630,000 police officers working nationwide, it's not clear how much of an effect even 50,000 cameras would have.

Body cameras have long been a popular proposal among police reform advocates, who say that documenting interactions between officers and civilians can help to eliminate bias and uncertainty regarding alleged misconduct by either party. One frequently cited pilot program in Rialto, California, found that between 2012 and 2013, in the first year of the city using police cameras, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent and use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent.

Despite resistance from some police officials and union members who have called the cameras an unnecessary distraction for officers, departments in major cities like Chicago, New York, Minneapolis and Washington, D.C., as well as smaller cities like Ferguson, have started using cameras, or have at least announced plans to do so.

Obama's $75 million program, which still requires congressional approval, would seek to ease the financial burden of outfitting police officers with cameras by providing a 50 percent funding match to states and localities that decide to participate. (Individual cameras cost between $300 and $400, on top of which are the costs associated with storing and maintaining the data recorded by the devices.) But with no ability to compel local police departments to get behind this move, the administration must simply hope that enough law enforcement volunteers are willing to join the program

What is the law regarding anything the officer tapes as to whether or not it can be used as evidence against the person being videoed?

I expect some clarification will be needed, but if the interation is in public space, or if the officer is granted permission to enter private space, then there shouldn't be a problem. If people don't want police in their private spaces, they can step outside.

Does the person have to be mirandized before anything they say or do can be used against them?

I believe the public\private space guidelines applies here too. My understanding is that Miranda protects you from being compelled to speak after you're arrested. Wouldn't apply to why you were being arrested. Right now, we take the officer's word as golden, barring other evidence. Video can only improve that.

If not, i love the camera idea. It will stop a lot of criminals from getting away with stuff because of technicalities

I agree. I think it's going to happen eventually, though police will fight it every step of the way. No one likes to be monitored, but it is effective. I've worked in monitored and unmonitored call centers, and the quality of service is much higher the closer people are watched.

Additionally, such monitoring could allow for officers back at HQ to watch what their people are up to in realtime, and send help\orders if needed.

I'm not convinced. As others have noted, sometimes the facts just don't seem to matter.

I like the facts that come from gleaning data from the real implementation of ideas. As mentioned in the original post:

in Rialto, California, found that between 2012 and 2013, in the first year of the city using police cameras, the number of complaints filed against officers fell by 88 percent and use of force by officers fell by almost 60 percent.

These type of numbers are hard to argue with.

I've lived in countries where lack of oversight encourages rampant police corruption, a heinous problem for any society. I've studied the history of America and heard the stories of the NYC police force from a time long before I was born. To think that the police are always the good guys (or bad guys) is an extreme position that can lead to a slippery slope. If police are doing their jobs well then they shouldn't be opposed to cameras.

Maybe it would have helped. Then again, maybe it would have showed nothing because it got knocked off in the scuffle or was pointed forward when the actions was on the left. Maybe even if it showed the whole deal in 1080p people would still complain that it was "doctored" by the cops.

Let's think about one other thing. Let's say that the camera worked just fine and caught everything just exactly the way that Wilson said it happened. What would that solve? Yeah, maybe there wouldn't have been riots but would it have eased the tensions between cops and the community? Would Al Sharpton and Malik Shabazz then suddenly stand in the street and start hollering "We need to clean our act up!" No, that damned sure wouldn't happen. Wilson would be cleared but the problem of cop hate and criminal behavior would still be there. The camera wouldn't have fixed a damned thing.

Greetings, Lutherf.

: How does anyone fix that? Maybe if jobs were more plentiful, it would ease the tensions since people would have something to do other than nurse a feeling that they are being cheated out of something they feel they are owed. Would the rioters in Ferguson feel better about the police if the entire force were black? Is it really racial, or is it just resentment about life in general?

I like the facts that come from gleaning data from the real implementation of ideas. As mentioned in the original post:

These type of numbers are hard to argue with.

I've lived in countries where lack of oversight encourages rampant police corruption, a heinous problem for any society. I've studied the history of America and heard the stories of the NYC police force from a time long before I was born. To think that the police are always the good guys (or bad guys) is an extreme position that can lead to a slippery slope. If police are doing their jobs well then they shouldn't be opposed to cameras.

Actually, I posted a link up above in this thread that discusses the discrepancy between cameras in Rialto and cameras in Albuquerque. They aren't the panacea folks would like to believe they are.